You're asking a couple distinct, and reasonable, questions. About "blind testing" -- I don't know the details for this particular result, but particle physicists put quite a bit of effort into making sure that they aren't fooling themselves. One of the best ways of doing it is so-called "blind analysis". The idea there is to define your entire data analysis strategy based solely on simulated data. There are pretty good simulations available of both the expected backgrounds, and of the process you are trying to actually find (the signal). So you define all of the methods you are going to use using these simulations before you look at the data. This ensures that you don't bias yourself into "finding something" in the data that isn't really there. (I don't know if a strict blinding procedure was used for this analysis, but likely something similar was done.)

The formal peer review system will come into effect now that the result is submitted to a journal. The paper will be distributed to some anonymous referees who will try to judge the merits of the physics and decide whether it merits publication. But I should note that the peer review process in modern particle physics actually starts long before the result is made public. Although there are only 3 or 4 main analysts, the paper is signed by the entire 3000 person CMS Collaboration (of which I am a member). So we have a very stringent internal review process to ensure that the result is sound before we release it with 3000 names taking responsibility. That doesn't mean that particle physics collaborations never make mistakes, but it does mean that results are scrutinized by a number of more or less unbiased eyes before they are made public.

I agree with the AC that it is wrong to call it a "statistical" effect. I don't think it has well defined statistical properties. The margin of error on a poll is a well-defined quantity based on the sample size of a poll. Here they're trying to quantify poorly-understood effects like how often people make dumb mistakes (write unclearly, misplace a stack of ballots, etc). This is more akin to a systematic uncertainty than a statistical one.

Because the results are not binding anyway, there's no need for a recount, or so the NYTimes says:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/no-need-for-recount-in-iowa-caucus/?scp=1&sq=iowa%20recount&st=cse

Glad someone had the same thought I had. I actually drank both recently while in the US (I live in Europe). Sam Adams isn't a beer that you're going to claim is the best beer ever, but it is quite respectable, IMHO. I drank the High Life because there was a bunch extra after a wedding and I was curious as to just how bad it was. It tastes like a maybe ok pils that somebody cut half and half with water. Not good at all.

Not sure about your other points, but the point about eliminating the Bush tax cuts is on the money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-to-halve-the-deficit-by-doing-nothing/2011/03/25/AFXb0RoB_blog.html

Now let the real fight, over the 2012 budget, start.

The problem with all of these proposals is that nobody can get over ideology enough to actually hammer out how to solve fiscal problems. This fight got stuck on a piddling amount of money for Planned Parenthood. There was also a bunch of wrangling about the EPA.

I expect more of the same when it comes to arguing about the Ryan plan. He's started things in the wrong direction already, by wanting to cut taxes on the rich and turn Medicare into a block grant program. And all of the really ugly details ala Planned Parenthood and the EPA aren't even in his proposal. He just says that discretionary spending is going to be cut, but doesn't say how. So there will be more fights like we just saw.

NPR got some experts to use various techniques to analyze the flow. They came up with numbers around a factor of 10 higher than the 5000 bpd estimate.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

Sad indeed (to the point where I feel guilty for using xemacs....). But it doesn't strike me as something that somebody would say because they haven't been appreciated enough. Rather, it sounds like he's clinically depressed. When you're that sad, it's not for a logical reason....

A Google search on:

javascript array sort

gives exactly the bogus answer that Microsoft used in the top hit.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, a bing search gives the same top hit.

Somebody should mod the parent up (red=ECAL, blue=HCAL). The color legend is confusing because some colors are repeated. I think that's what got the guy confused who originally posted the link.